Mad scientist: the unique case of a published delusion

The risky business of being an entomologist: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Adverse work-related health outcomes are a significant problem worldwide. Entomologists, including arthropod breeders, are a unique occupational group exposed to potentially harmful arthropods, pesticides, and other more generic hazards. These exposures may place them at risk of a range of adverse work-related health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine what adverse work-related health outcomes entomologists have experienced, the incidence/prevalence of these outcomes, and what occupational management strategies have been employed by entomologists, and their effectiveness.

METHODS

A systematic search of eight databases was undertaken to identify studies informing the review objectives. Data pertaining to country, year, design, work-exposure, adverse work-related health outcomes, incidence/prevalence of these outcomes, and occupational management strategies were extracted, and reported descriptively.

DISCUSSION

Results showed entomologists experienced work-related allergies, venom reactions, infections, infestations and delusional parasitosis. These related to exposure to insects, arachnids, chilopods and entognathans, and non-arthropod exposures, e.g. arthropod feed. Few studies reported the incidence/prevalence of such conditions, or work-related management strategies utilised by entomologists. There were no studies that specifically investigated the effectiveness of potential management strategies for entomologists as a population. Indeed, critical appraisal analysis indicated poor research quality in this area, which is a significant research gap.

CONCLUSIONS

Entomologists are a diverse, unique occupational group, at risk of a range of adverse work-related health outcomes. This study represents the first systematic review of their work-related health risks. Future studies investigating the prevalence of adverse work-related health outcomes for entomologists, and the effectiveness of management strategies are warranted to decrease the disease burden of this otherwise understudied group.

Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature

Retraction of flawed articles is an important mechanism for correction of the scientific literature. We recently reported that the majority of retractions are associated with scientific misconduct. In the current study, we focused on the subset of retractions for which no misconduct was identified, in order to identify the major causes of error. Analysis of the retraction notices for 423 articles indexed in PubMed revealed that the most common causes of error-related retraction are laboratory errors, analytical errors, and irreproducible results. The most common laboratory errors are contamination and problems relating to molecular biology procedures (e.g., sequencing, cloning). Retractions due to contamination were more common in the past, whereas analytical errors are now increasing in frequency. A number of publications that have not been retracted despite being shown to contain significant errors suggest that barriers to retraction may impede correction of the literature. In particular, few cases of retraction due to cell line contamination were found despite recognition that this problem has affected numerous publications. An understanding of the errors leading to retraction can guide practices to improve laboratory research and the integrity of the scientific literature. Perhaps most important, our analysis has identified major problems in the mechanisms used to rectify the scientific literature and suggests a need for action by the scientific community to adopt protocols that ensure the integrity of the publication process.